Advertisement

A Trans-Disciplinary Approach Towards Understanding the State in the Information Society Era

  • Uroš PinteričEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Public Administration and Information Technology book series (PAIT, volume 25)

Abstract

Despite strong demands for specialisation, it is more and more obvious that modern research interests cannot be addressed in isolation—one could argue that even in research, the world is facing a kind of globalisation. The same is valid also for the understanding of the state, which is often reduced to certain components close to the individual researchers’ interests. In this chapter, we shall try to understand the modern state from the perspectives of different approaches and shall try to establish a more complex view on the modern state, which is trying to perform its duties, but fails in doing so due to a lack of ability to synchronise different fields, or due to its inability to step out of the elitist approach to the role of government. In this manner, this chapter tries to provide multiple and interconnected arguments for reform of the state on the level of political and societal reality while understanding the technological development as a framework and not the primary factor of the social change. The final argument is that the information and communication technologies are providing the possibilities for the changes, but changes themselves happen predominantly in the direction and extent allowed by the elites.

Keywords

Communication Technology Classical State Political Participation Public Management Modern State 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 6, P. (2004). E-governance. Houndmills, New York. Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  2. Althusser, L. (2008). On Ideology. London, New York: Verso.Google Scholar
  3. Boudreau, M. C., Robey, D. (2005). Enacting integrated information technology: A human agency perspective. Organization science, 16(1), 3–18.Google Scholar
  4. Cooper, R. (2000). The post-modern state and the world order. London: Demos.Google Scholar
  5. Cyrus, N., Vogel, D. (2016). Major developments in Germany’s immigration policy. European Immigration: A Sourcebook, London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32016L0680 (15.9.2016)
  7. Gardner, H. (1982). Art, mind, and brain: A cognitive approach to creativity. Basic Books.Google Scholar
  8. Graeff, T., Harmon, S. (2002). Collecting and using personal data: consumers’ awareness and concerns. Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 19 Iss: 4, pp. 302–318.Google Scholar
  9. Gray, J. (2015). Al Qaeda and what it means to be modern. Faber & Faber.Google Scholar
  10. Grdešić, I. (1995). Političko odlučivanje. Zagreb: Alinea.Google Scholar
  11. Hogwood, B. W., Gunn, L. A. (1984). Policy Analysis for the Real World. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Kovač, P. (2002). Podjetniška načela v upravljanju slovenske javne uprave. In B. Ferfila (ed.) Ekonomski vidiki javne uprave. Ljubljana. FDV (pp. 144–280).Google Scholar
  13. Lane, J-E. (2000). New Public Management. London, New York, RutledgeGoogle Scholar
  14. Lukšič, I. (1997). Onkraj politične mehanike. In A. Bibič (ed.) Kaj je politika?. Ljubljana: Znanstveno in publicistično središče (pp. 11–27).Google Scholar
  15. Makdisi, U. (2002). “Anti-Americanism” in the Arab world: An interpretation of a brief history. The Journal of American History, Vol. 89, No. 2, pp. 538–557.Google Scholar
  16. Nicolescu B. (2008). Transdisciplinarity - Theory and Practice. (Ed.), Hampton Press, Cresskill, NJ, USA.Google Scholar
  17. Nielsen, N. (2015). EU-US data pact skewered in court hearing. EU observer, 25.3.2015. Available at: https://euobserver.com/justice/128131 (1.9.2016)
  18. Norris, P. (2002). Revolution, What Revolution? The Internet and U.S. elections, 1992-2002. In E. C. Kamarck, J. S. Nye Jr. (eds.): Governance.com: Democracy in the Information Age. Cambridge, Washington DC. Brookings Institution Press, (pp. 59–80).Google Scholar
  19. Norris, P. (2001). Digital divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide. Cambridge, New York, Oakleight, Ruiz de Alarcon, Cape Town. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Oliver, E. L., Sanders, L. (2004). Introduction. In E. L. Oliver and L. Sanders (eds.). E-Government Reconsidered: Renewal of Governance for the Knowledge Age. Regina. Saskatcewan Institute of Public Policy (pp. vii–xiv).Google Scholar
  21. Osborne, D., Gaebler, T. (1993): Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector. New York, London, Victoria, Toronto, Auckland. Plume/Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  22. Paulin, A. (2014). Through Liquid Democracy to Sustainable Non-Bureaucratic Government. eJournal of eDemocracy and Open Government. Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 216–230. Available at: http://www.jedem.org/index.php/jedem/article/view/307 (1.9.2016)
  23. Paulin A. (2013). Towards Self-Service Government - A Study on the Computability of Legal Eligibilities. Journal of Universal Computer Science, Vol. 19, No. DOI:  10.3217/jucs-019-12-1761
  24. Phillips, K. (2006). American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century. Penguin.Google Scholar
  25. Pinterič, U. (2015). Spregledane pasti informacijske družbe. Novo mesto. Fakulteta za organizacijske študije.Google Scholar
  26. Pinterič, U. (2010). Development of e-government services for citizens in Slovenia: theory and practice. Eastern European economics, vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 88–98.Google Scholar
  27. Pinterič, U. (2009). Črna skrinjica političnih sistemov: uvod v politične sisteme in javne politike. Ljubljana. Vega.Google Scholar
  28. Porter, R. (1990). The history of science and the history of society. in G.N. Cantor, J.R.R. Christie, M.J.S. Hodge, R.C. Olby (eds.). Companion to the history of modern science, London, New York: Routledge (pp. 32–46).Google Scholar
  29. Prijon, L. (2012). Clientelism and Slovenian public administration reform. Polish Sociological Review. Vol. 180. No. 4 pp. 545–560.Google Scholar
  30. Purcell, D. (1999). Slovenska država na internetu. Ljubljana. Open society institute.Google Scholar
  31. Ropac, I. (2012). Družina Karner v Sloveniji varna pred ZDA. Delo, 28.8.2012.Google Scholar
  32. Savšek, T. Makovec, I. Cerovšek, M. (2015). Transdisciplinary product development. Revija za univerzalno odličnost, Vol. 4, No 4., pp. 171–182.Google Scholar
  33. Saxena, K.B.C. (1996). Re-engineering Public Administration in Developing Countries. Long Range Planning. vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 703–711.Google Scholar
  34. Webster, F. (2014). Theories of the information society. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. Weingart, P. (2002). The moment of truth for science. EMBO reports, Vol. 3, No. 8, pp. 703–706.Google Scholar
  36. ZEKom-1: Zakon o elektronskih komunikacijah. Ur.l.RS 109/2012.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Organisation Studies in Novo MestoNovo MestoSlovenia
  2. 2.Department of Political Science, Faculty of ArtsTrnava UniversityTrnavaSlovakia

Personalised recommendations